The other difference, one ought not need add, is that in My Lai the United States was fighting the Vietcong. A recent article about the captured diary of a slain female Vietnamese militant (now a best seller in Vietnam) makes it plain that we were vainly attempting to defeat a peoples' army with a high morale and exalted standards. I, for one, will not have them insulted by any comparison to the forces of Zarqawi, the Fedayeen Saddam, and the criminal underworld now arrayed against us.

The bad faith of a majority of the left is instanced by four things (apart, that is, from mass demonstrations in favor of prolonging the life of a fascist government). First, the antiwar forces never asked the Iraqi left what it wanted, because they would have heard very clearly that their comrades wanted the overthrow of Saddam. (President Jalal Talabani's party, for example, is a member in good standing of the Socialist International.) This is a betrayal of what used to be called internationalism. Second, the left decided to scab and blackleg on the Kurds, whose struggle is the oldest cause of the left in the Middle East. Third, many leftists and liberals stressed the cost of the Iraq intervention as against the cost of domestic expenditure, when if they had been looking for zero-sum comparisons they might have been expected to cite waste in certain military programs, or perhaps the cost of the "war on drugs." This, then, was mere cynicism. Fourth, and as mentioned, their humanitarian talk about the sanctions turned out to be the most inexpensive hypocrisy.

Hitchens in November 2002: "Part of the charm of the regime-change argument (from the point of view of its supporters) is that it depends on premises and objectives that cannot, at least by the administration, be publicly avowed."

What will the leftists say when millions of Iraqis turn out to vote in the region's first free elections? That it doesn't matter? That the murderous peace under Saddam was more humane? That those who risk their lives to vote are fools?

With the Left, which is supposed to care about secularism and humanism, it's a bit harder to explain an alliance with woman-stoning, gay-burning, Jew-hating medieval theocrats. However, it can be done, once you assume that American imperialism is the main enemy. Even for those who won't go quite that far, the admission that the US Marine Corps might be doing the right thing is a little further than they are prepared to go - because what would then be left of their opposition credentials, which are so dear to them?

Some published Letters to the Editor following reply to Phillip Adams by Christopher Hitchens and letter from Robert Manne with similar line to Adams and other letters demanding appeasement of terrorist hostage takers, just before as Hitchens article demolishing them. "The Australian", August 2, 3 and 4, 2004

Adams descends to holocaust revisionism about the Kurdish Anfal -- Remembering their dead is a "distraction" from the "central issue" of lies about WMDs for an "unjustified war" against a regime that really might not have been all that bad. See also reply by Christopher Hitchens.

No one would deny that the Coalition Provisional Authority made some fundamental errors in policy in its 14 months of power. And no one should be blind to the dangers that lie ahead. But at this point in Iraq's history the choice is a stark one. Either we support those who offer the chance of a democratic Iraq, with laws that protect the rights of all Iraqis and a civil society that ensures the country never returns to the evil days of dictatorship, or we embrace the gunmen and the bombers, who have already demonstrated their contempt for human life.

Where is everybody? That's what the survivors want to know. Adams -- who uses the suggestive phrase "forced to confess" only when jeering at Blair, and who incidentally attributes all casualties in the anti-Saddam wars only to the Coalition -- now offers the only defence that Saddam's attorneys haven't come up with. Why didn't they think of pleading "No big deal"?

And then on Thursday night, Sen. Kerry quite needlessly proposed a contradiction between "opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America." Talk about a false alternative. To borrow the current sappy language of "making us safer": Who would feel more secure if they knew that we weren't spending any tax dollars on Iraqi firehouses?

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture.

Credible opinion polls show that a large majority of Iraqis feel better off than a year ago. There is real freedom of the press with newspapers and radio stations mushrooming in the new Iraq. There is unhindered internet access. NGOs covering everything from human rights to women's advocacy have emerged. In short, Iraq is experiencing real freedom for the first time in its history. And that is exactly what the religious fanatics fear.

Either these goons were acting on someone's authority, in which case there is a layer of mid- to high-level people who think that they are not bound by the laws and codes and standing orders. Or they were acting on their own authority, in which case they are the equivalent of mutineers, deserters, or traitors in the field. This is why one asks wistfully if there is no provision in the procedures of military justice for them to be taken out and shot.

The whole point in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, from my perspective, was to achieve those large possibilities right in the center of the Muslim world, where the ripples might lead in every direction........
But Mr. Bush muddied these issues long ago by putting too much emphasis on weapons in Iraq

I can't see how this compares to the attempt to partition and subjugate Vietnam, bomb its cities, drench its forests in Agent Orange, and hand over its southern region to a succession of brutal military proxies. For one thing, Vietnam even at its most Stalinist never invaded and occupied neighboring countries (or not until it took on the Khmer Rouge), never employed weapons of genocide inside or outside its own borders, and never sponsored gangs of roving nihilist terrorists. If not all its best nationalists were Communists, all its best Communists were nationalists, and their combination of regular and irregular forces had beaten the Japanese and French empires long before the United States even set foot in the country, let alone before the other Kennedy brothers started assassinating the very puppets they had installed there.

...this "Heart of Darkness" element is part of the case for regime-change to begin with. A few more years of Saddam Hussein, or perhaps the succession of his charming sons Uday and Qusay, and whole swathes of Iraq would have looked like Fallujah. The Baathists, by playing off tribe against tribe, Arab against Kurd and Sunni against Shiite, were preparing the conditions for a Hobbesian state of affairs. Their looting and beggaring of the state and the society--something about which we now possess even more painfully exact information--was having the same effect. A broken and maimed and traumatized Iraq was in our future no matter what.

This indecision is partially replicated in Washington, which is in no hurry to alarm its Turkish ally with too much talk of Kurdish self-determination in either Iraq or Syria. But "regime change," as those of us who favor it have always maintained, is not something that can too easily be manipulated. Colin Powell, who has always detested the policy, may have spent the past few days trying to reassure the Saudis that nothing too revolutionary is intended by American pronouncements about democracy. As usual, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. In Syria, and tomorrow in Iran, there are forces at work who intend to take these pronouncements with absolute seriousness. It would be nice if American liberals came out more forcefully and demanded that the administration live up to its own rhetoric on the question.

I as a Kurd and as an Iraqi, I know, perhaps more than others, that war is devastating and should be questioned. However, for us, this war was to end the brutal war that has been waged against the people of Iraq. It was a war to bring us the opportunity of peace and freedom. And I will tell you unequivocally we are grateful to the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Poland, Italy and So many other nations that have come from a far to deliver us from tyranny and fascism. Moreover, being here in Spain I must offer our profound gratitude to the Spaniards who have come to help in our hour of need, and paid with their lives for freedom and justice.

How is it possible that Marxism has been so corrupted and distorted that "Marxists" prefer to see thousands more Iraqis die in the torture chambers of the Baath, and millions more suffer under the iniquities excused (not caused) by the UN sanctions, rather than admit that socialists not only can but must support even the worst bourgeois democracy against even the least bad tyranny?

"Today, we fight alongside you because in a world of cynicism, the U.S., and its genuine allies, understand that they cannot use the Kurdish dead to justify this war and then sell out the Kurdish living. We have been sickened to hear those who armed Saddam preach to us about the horrors of war, to listen to those who helped prop up the dictator prate about international law."